national

Kyushu town approves nuclear reactor restart

41 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014. Click For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

I'll go ahead and say it. Until Japan finds a new alternative way to generate power, nuclear reactors need to come back online.

People need some relief from their electric bills, especially with the first winter since the tax big hike this Spring.

0 ( +14 / -14 )

Another nuclear accident could permanently shut down Japan's nuclear plants. That's bad for its nuclear weapons program. The (undeclared) weapons grade nuclear materials that Japan already has, although considerable, will deteriorate over time. You need to be continuously producing to keep up the stock pile. Otherwise, "Japan can make thousands of nuclear warheads in 90 days" would just be an empty threat.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

Kyushu town approves nuclear reactor restart

In reality this is not accurate, the "town" didn't decide, the council-critters did, and what is not being talked about is just how much money that is floating around to get them to make this choice. The people in the town are relative hostages to the nuclear power plant company as it subsidizes a ton of things in the town (including the politicians) and put a crap load of pressure on them to vote yes.

It isnt 100% guaranteed that the reactors will go back online as the prefecture has to vote on it as well.

Here's to hoping THEY get it right.

17 ( +21 / -4 )

Isn't this the plant near the now-becoming-active volcanoes? Are these folk serious?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"When will they ever learn... ?"

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

The restart divided communities nearest to the plant, pitting the host township that gets direct benefits from siting reactors against other communities that do not reap the benefits but say they will be equally exposed to radioactive releases in the event of a disaster.

Yes, the town where the plant resides has an economy that is based on the plant running, and the next town over has an economy based on selling specialty items, mostly food. That town does not receive anywhere near the benefits that the adjacent town does from the plant. One small accident would kill their economic base. One large accident, of course, and neither town will have to worry about their economic base.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Good now get some others sorted and started so they can reduce the import costs on fuel to run the coal, gas and oil fired generation plants.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Finally a glimpse of sanity.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

@Yubaru You are completely correct, it is not the people that decided. However, it is really simple for the local and governmental authorities to hold a referendum. A referendum would without doubt show what the town really wants. Having seen the disaster at Fukushima and the myriad problems associated with that,it would be incomprehensible to imagine the people of Satsumasendai wishing the same fate upon themselves....

5 ( +8 / -3 )

People need some relief from their electric bills, especially with the first winter since the tax big hike this Spring.

But, people will not get any relief. Do you believe they will drop tariffs after they get their reactors back online?

So, I'm wondering how many of the pro-votes came from pro-Abe politicians? Over half of the town voted against the restart, but that doesn't mean anything. Japan is not a democracy! It is a fascist state run by beaurocrats and cronies.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Nineteen of the city’s 26 assembly members voted in favor of restarting the plant while four members voted against and three abstained, a city assembly member told Reuters.

19 took the summer holiday

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Now audit the town assembly members' bank accounts.... any mysterious "donations" suddenly show up in their campaign funds or personal accounts?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Frungy - they have probably learned from recent scandals and take their contributions in cash no doubt. All good.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Yubaru and others got it right: it's again "money talks, money counts"! Guess they need a couple of more "nuclear power plant incidents" until they will finally learn (sarcasm mode was turned on). But then again, some people never learn.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

No they will get their "rewards" from winnings at pachinko parlors. So there is no money trail.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I have no choice but to wish them well in this, and it seems to be happening in spite of what the people who live there want. I hope there will be no accidents. The stock price of Kyushu Electric has had a nice little bump this week, and I take that as an indication of a deal that has been completed.

We now need zero problems, because Fukushima had the advantage of winds that mostly blew out to sea, toward the east, and this plant also has winds that blow toward the east, toward the rest of Japan, including Tokyo. All fruit and vegetables in the country would be affected by any accident, as would all the people. I do hope all that can be done for safety will be done before the plant is started, probably early next year.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Sanity prevails.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Yubaru: Exactly. I wish some local folks down in Satsumasendai could get together and make some noise for a town-wide referendum on the matter. If nothing else, it would have their opinions on the record.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I thought the town was the 100,000. Didn't know it was the twenty-six assembly members. The assembly members did not vote on behalf of the town. I guess the nineteen who voted 'hai' are protecting their interests/shares. The voices of the people go unheard...as usual.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Farm boy, your weather forecasts are faulty. Have you ever heard of the Westerlies? They bring the Taifu.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Now audit the town assembly members' bank accounts.... any mysterious "donations" suddenly show up in their campaign funds or personal accounts?

Of course, because the only way someone can do something you disagree with is if they are paid off.

And it amazes me how many people don't understand how a representative democracy works. If every issue required a referendum people would spend much of every day voting on one thing or another.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

This isn't "the town" voting, it's the people in government that are supposed to represent the town but are representing their vested interests.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Farm boy, your weather forecasts are faulty. Have you ever heard of the Westerlies? They bring the Taifu

JapanGal,

Sure, I've heard of the Westerlies. What is your point?

"The Westerlies, anti-trades, or Prevailing Westerlies, are prevailing winds from the west toward the east in the middle latitudes between 30 and 60 degrees latitude."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Mike O'BrienOct. 29, 2014 - 07:34PM JST

Now audit the town assembly members' bank accounts.... any mysterious "donations" suddenly show up in their campaign funds or personal accounts?

Of course, because the only way someone can do something you disagree with is if they are paid off.

Doesn't matter if I agree or disagree, this is how modern democracies work. Of course some countries are more sophisticated, like the US where "lobby groups" ensure that politicians' campaign funds remain topped up, have a hotline for free tickets paid for by an oil company, etc.

And it amazes me how many people don't understand how a representative democracy works.

Yes, it is amazing. What is ironic is that clearly YOU are the one who doesn't understand.

If every issue required a referendum people would spend much of every day voting on one thing or another.

Bull. France piloted a system back in the 1970's that allowed citizens to vote from their homes quickly and easily every morning or evening. It worked fantastically, but the politicians axed the project... because of mysterious technical issues that were never fully explained.

With modern technology and encryption the need for pencil and paper ballots has long since passed, and we SHOULD be voting on every important issue. And don't give me fearmongering about hackers... banks transfer TRILLIONS every day, enough to crash every economy on the planet, and they do it all electronically with commercial-grade software. If you can safely transfer your cash around the place then you should be able to safely vote on everything important to your life.

Anyone who honestly buys the need for paper and pencil voting in this day and age is a bigger fool than they have any right to be.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

In this kind if decision, it is best town has voting by citizens, including school children. I;d bet Mitubishi, Sanyo, Kyocera and other vertical and other solar energy plants business are disappointed.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Anyone who honestly buys the need for paper and pencil voting in this day and age is a bigger fool than they have any right to be.

And nobody here advocated that, but nice strawman.

And don't give me fearmongering about hackers

Another strawman.

What is ironic is that clearly YOU are the one who doesn't understand.

Really? And what brought YOU to that epiphany?

The voters elect 'representatives' who meet to vote on laws/issues affecting the voters. I never said there weren't abuses. Of course those abuses can come from everywhere not just the groups you don't like. Again we seem to be back to your apparent belief that your opponents are always wrong and corrupt or they would think like you.

It worked fantastically

Really? So all the voters spent the time to understand every issue and cast an informed vote about it while still carrying on their normal lives?

Personnally making a living doesn't leave me enough time to be in expert in the intricacies of all the major issues. Just like I don't have the time to be an expert in car repair and HVAC repair and plumbing and electrical wiring and medicine and a whole host of other things, so I hire experts in those fields.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mike O'BrienOct. 29, 2014 - 09:18PM JST

Anyone who honestly buys the need for paper and pencil voting in this day and age is a bigger fool than they have any right to be.

And nobody here advocated that, but nice strawman.

Actually you did, with the line, "If every issue required a referendum people would spend much of every day voting on one thing or another.".

You presupposed paper and pencil voting, or at minimum people standing around in a hall. I correctly pointed out that technology could bypass those issues.

Clearly we can add the term "strawman" to the list of things you don't understand.

And don't give me fearmongering about hackers

Another strawman.

Nope, it is preempting a common fear about electronic voting. Again, check the meaning of words before you use them in order to avoid embarrassment.

What is ironic is that clearly YOU are the one who doesn't understand.

Really? And what brought YOU to that epiphany?

Your naive belief that politicians don't routinely accept inducements in order to vote a certain way.

The voters elect 'representatives' who meet to vote on laws/issues affecting the voters. I never said there weren't abuses. Of course those abuses can come from everywhere not just the groups you don't like. Again we seem to be back to your apparent belief that your opponents are always wrong and corrupt or they would think like you.

Now THIS is a straw man argument.

I made a statement that they should check the politicians' accounts. You then misrepresented this statement as me believing that ONLY people who I disagreed with accepted bribes, and proceeded to attack your misrepresentation.

That's a textbook straw man argument.

It worked fantastically

Really? So all the voters spent the time to understand every issue and cast an informed vote about it while still carrying on their normal lives?

Hell no, they just voted how they felt on the issue. However it was real democracy, which is rule of the people (even the ignorant and stupid) by the people for the people.

What we have now is rule of the people (by the rich and powerful through bribes) by elected career politicians for the benefit of the rich, powerful and the careers of the elected politicians.

All in all I prefer allowing the idiots to vote (which is hopefully cancelled out by the genius' votes) and take the average result than trusting in career politicians.

Personnally making a living doesn't leave me enough time to be in expert in the intricacies of all the major issues. Just like I don't have the time to be an expert in car repair and HVAC repair and plumbing and electrical wiring and medicine and a whole host of other things, so I hire experts in those fields.

Well done, you admit your limitations. Now kindly extend that same thinking to politicians, who generally have only a basic degree, yet are asked to vote on complex issues like economic reforms, health care, and ... yes, the complexities of nuclear physics, geology and disaster management.

They clearly don't understand the issue any better than you do. And they were elected by a process that amounts to a glorified popularity contest, so the only qualification that they do have that we can be vaguely sure of is that they're popular people... or have enough money to buy the appearance of popularity.

Personally I'd rather trust the people, and more than 50% of them in this area DID NOT want nuclear power turned back on. That's democracy. Over ruling the will of the people is nothing short of fascism.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Sadly enough not a small number of people in towns with nuclear power plants tend to welcome their restart because, as this article points out, they are benefited from government subsidies, with which they build utilities, make roads, and etc.,; and a lot of job opportunities are generated around nuclear power plants, including engineers, utility cleaners, company restaurant stuff, guards, you name it. It occupies a huge part of their lives. I repeat that it is sad, but empirically saying this seems to have some truth. While advocating the abandonment of nuclear power plants, we might, at the same time, need to present people living in those towns the alternative way to make their living.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

How many of the communities with atomic plants and reactors would support restarting them if they no longer received the billions of gift money more commonly called nuclear energy tax?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I wote in this kid of decision,,, .... aqnd voting machine as I was not aware that some people were not aware of existenc of voting machines in the world. Made by Jzpznese tech companies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It doesn't take much to buy off one small town. So long the rest of Japan is paying for the bribe.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

and has long relied on the Sendai plant for government subsidies and jobs.

Nothing need more to be said. The folks in the town sold their souls to nuclear power years ago, so now they need to turn the spigot back on -- Money Talks.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Emissions from fossil fuels is killing many more people than the history of atomic power. Millions of people die a year from air, water and ground pollution.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Imagine a seismic event causing another massive meltdown. Then imagine that fallout making its way towards millions of people - there is nowhere to go to escape fro that....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@kurisupisu

Have you read Bill Bryson? We scan about only 3% of the sky around us.

An asteroid, outside or that 3%, could arrive unanounced at any time. We'd have about fourteen seconds notice before it hit us.

So, hey, be happy! : )

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As a meltdown would affect a large area, art least put restarting an N plant to a prefectural referendum. It's too easy to buy off these small towns.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In China, airpollution raises the lung cancer rate by 500%. Meltdown is nothing compared to that. Only talk with numbers. Everyone talks about meltdown like he/she really knows about that. Meltdown wouldn't turn reactor into a bomb, as long as the saftey shell is there, meltdown is not a big deal. In history meltdown has happened many times in several nations. Only in Cheynobly it took 30+ lifes, because there is no saftey shell by design. Who fear of nuclear energy is just like cavemen fear of fire. First know what is a BWR, LWR, advanced reactor, breed reactor, fission rate and etc., then reply me.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm happy when not thinking about nuclear accidents......full stop but.... Let's not put nuclear reactors on seismically charged land eh?

(I hope I don't sound patronizing to those posters thinking it is a good idea?)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Actually you did, with the line

Actually I didn't, as your nice quote shows no mention of paper or pencil. I didn't presuppose anything, you jump to an assumptioin that allowed you to prop up your contention. Classic strawman.

Nope, it is preempting a common fear about electronic voting.

Yup. Brining up something that wasn't mention so you can argue against it. Another classic strawman.

Your naive belief that politicians don't routinely accept inducements in order to vote a certain way.

And where did I do that? Oh wait I didn't, just another assumption so you could whing.

It worked fantastically

which is rule of the people (even the ignorant and stupid) by the people for the people.

So rule by stupidity and ignorance is your defintion of worked fantastically. Well no wonder your perceptions of reality seem so skewed.

Now kindly extend that same thinking to politicians

But it is their job to try and get the information needed to make those decisions. Of course it doesn't work perfectly but better to have a small group trying to make informed decisions than millions making clueless guesses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mike O'BrienOct. 30, 2014 - 08:14PM JST

Actually you did, with the line

Actually I didn't, as your nice quote shows no mention of paper or pencil. I didn't presuppose anything, you jump to an assumptioin that allowed you to prop up your contention. Classic strawman.

Bull. You're reaching here. You explicitly stated that voting was too time-consuming for regular citizens. I proposed a model that overcome the time constraints traditionally associated with voting. That isn't a strawman, that's point and rebuttal.

Your naive belief that politicians don't routinely accept inducements in order to vote a certain way. And where did I do that? Oh wait I didn't, just another assumption so you could whing.

You stated, "Of course, because the only way someone can do something you disagree with is if they are paid off."

This statement clearly indicates that you believe that being paid off is not a routine part of modern democracies. It is. My point stands.

It worked fantastically

which is rule of the people (even the ignorant and stupid) by the people for the people.

So rule by stupidity and ignorance is your defintion of worked fantastically. Well no wonder your perceptions of reality seem so skewed.

It works well enough to elect those representatives you have such faith in, but suddenly you have no confidence in it when citizens can vote on all issues? Yeah, right.

But it is their job to try and get the information needed to make those decisions.

Show me this mystical job description you refer to. Most democracies have to put in place rules to ensure that elected representatives arrive to meetings, never mind having done the pre-reading. And if your belief that they had done the necessary research was true then please explain why elected representatives normally vote along party lines, instead of actually voting as their research indicates.

Your theory is full of bull.

Of course it doesn't work perfectly but better to have a small group trying to make informed decisions than millions making clueless guesses.

"Doesn't work perfectly"? The understatement of the century.

And research has shown that millions of "clueless guesses" is actually the right way to go. Did you ever watch, "The Weakest Link" or similar game shows? Most of the time the studio audience (some of whom were homeless people paid to sit there) got the right answer more reliably than most of the heavily prepared participants.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

lol@ everyone being scared of the "big evil nuclear plants". the truth is they save japan a ton of money just gotta make them more secure than they were before

all new technologies might present risks at first, if you give up just because of one accident, then youre bound to never make any progress

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites